Official Bulldogs player given 5 weeks suspension (Corey Waddell)

[Rod67]

At least he'll be back in time for the Finals.

 

[DinkumDog]

Whilst it may not be politically smart I think Waddell was entitled to be indignant, he obviously believed that he was 100% innocent of eye gouging, that Tino was plainly milking it for a penalty by claiming he was eye gouged, that the ref fell for it and then the NRL changed the charge.

How did the NRL 'change' the charge? The on-field complaint was for an eye-gouge, it was put on report by the referee and the NRL match review committee graded it dangerous contact and referred him straight to the judiciary. It never 'changed'.

Cutting to the chase, are you truly OK with the NRL judicial system where the same body (the NRL itself) is the complainant, prosecutor, jury and judge?

How is this different from say a judge only trial in the NSW Supreme Court? A recent high profile case was that of Chris Dawson (you know, the Teachers Pet thing). So the prosecution and magistrate both represent the Crown - more specifically the magistrate is the crown and the prosecution represents the crown. The same judge considers the law and the also considers the facts (the role of the jury) but ultimately passes verdict and sentence. So if it's OK for murder trials, I don't see what the problem is for a football judiciary. And nor is it 'communist'.

 

[King Gus]

5 weeks and tino is out for ??
There was no intent and tino milked it.

 

[Brendan7]

no it would not have mattered, maybe even made it worse if he said he did it. There is no reduction of time if you plead guilty when you are sent straight there. Different if he was given a charge

The NRL counsel specifically stated his lack of ownership was half the reason they wanted 5 weeks.

 

[stingray]

5 weeks and tino is out for ??
There was no intent and tino milked it.

We can sit here and everybody can put there opinions,weather Tino milked it or not,Tinos head was pulled back and you can see the grimace in his face,honestly hard for Waddell to have a strong case in his favour

 

[Doggy71]

Gussy was probably busy on Twitter complimenting Tino and other non-dogs players whilst the hearing was in session. Bloke is a deadset double agent booby trapping our club before our very eyes

You must be drinking too much of your own bathwater if you think Gus is a double agent or something my friend. The club hasn't looked this good in years and we are finally going in the right direction for a change.

 

[King Gus]

We can sit here and everybody can put there opinions,weather Tino milked it or not,Tinos head was pulled back and you can see the grimace in his face,honestly hard for Waddell to have a strong case in his favour

Yeah but 5 weeks? This is absurd.

 

[Haddaway]

The still photo looks pretty bad to me after looking at it again.

Looks like his finger is over the eye, he may not be digging in but he is pressing down on the eye and then he yanks the head back.

 

[Expedite]

He is useless, but the NRL is so corrupt and its becoming more and more obvious each day.

 

[Berries]

Same sentence for a spear tackle that could end someone's life

 

[True Blue]

Well it seems it did. Read this from the NRL’s Prosecutor.

Knowles suggested a ban of at least five matches, citing Waddell's apparent lack of contrition and the serious nature of making contact with a rival player's eye.

This is probably the worse week in Rugby League history for those who are supposedly in charge of running the game.

Decision on the penalty has to be reviewed. Yes he’s guilty of putting his hand where it shouldn’t have been but these C’s seem like they make it up as they go along.

Yep.....I know and disagree with the prosecutor............the prosecutor sounds like a whinging lawyer just wanting to notch up another win. I have no issue with the guilty call as his hands should not be there, but it is still questionable that he actually "gouged".......I believe that they should appeal the length of the sentence....3 weeks would be about right in my view. If you believe that you did nothing significantly wrong, why would you show remorse?

 

[senshidog]

Well since they've convicted him of the eye gouge, the least they could do is let him fly to Gold Coast and actually do it properly.

I mean it's pretty much a free kick at this time.

 

[Shnissss]

Waddell is out but Tino has just put another marker on himself for the next time we play them

 

[chisdog]

I thought he'd get 2 weeks. No way he was going to get off on it. If it was during the initial tackle then it could have seemed more accidental. But the player was already held by him and two other players, then he reached over and grabbed his face. He probably wasn't going for an eye gouge but he was at least trying to deliberately grab his face which will usually result in an eye gouge. Just a stupid move.

His hand originally hit Max King's shoulder which moved the hand upwards. The original intent was not the face.

 

[chisdog]

It's the most obvious eye gouge (fingers in the eye with pressure, whatever you want to call it) I've seen, one look at it live and people should of know he was gone for months.

You haven't seen many have you?

 

[chisdog]

This.

I don't think any of us think it was an actual eye gouge, but i think the judiciary wants to also send a tough message - keep your hands away from the eyes. and fair enough.

We will see if it is evenly enforced from now on because it hasn't up until now.

 

[chisdog]

Waddell is out but Tino has just put another marker on himself for the next time we play them

a nipple cripple in every tackle.

 

[TwinTurbo]

How did the NRL 'change' the charge? The on-field complaint was for an eye-gouge, it was put on report by the referee and the NRL match review committee graded it dangerous contact and referred him straight to the judiciary. It never 'changed'.

What did Tino claim, "eye gouged", what did the ref put Waddel on report for "eye gouging" what did the NRL charge him with "Ungraded Dangerous Contact". My view is there NRL knew it could not possibly win the eye gouging charge, pictures of Tino at the time and afterwards plainly show that there was no eye gouging. They couldn't win that, so they chose a different (very generalised ie; vague) charge that they could win.

The real problem I have is that when the media reports on it they say "found guilty of eye gouging", which is plainly not the case. But let's get real, it is the media after all and "found guilty of an Upgraded Dangerous Contact charge" doesn't make for a good headline.

is this different from say a judge only trial in the NSW Supreme Court? A recent high profile case was that of Chris Dawson (you know, the Teachers Pet thing). So the prosecution and magistrate both represent the Crown - more specifically the magistrate is the crown and the prosecution represents the crown. The same judge considers the law and the also considers the facts (the role of the jury) but ultimately passes verdict and sentence. So if it's OK for murder trials, I don't see what the problem is for a football judiciary.

A bit of a long bow, the NSW Police Force are the complainants, the prosecution is the DPP, the Governor appoints Judges on the recommendation of the Attorney General and yes they all work for the Government which in fact means us the people. Dawson had the right to a jury trial but he (his legal team) asked for a judge only trial because of the publicity around the case that he thought may taint the jury pool. Waddel had no such right, the NRL doesn't allow it.

nor is it 'communist'.

I did say dictatorship and communist approach to their judicial system as a comparison to the free world judicial system. Not that the NRL system itself was communist.


Always a Bulldog

 

[Hacky McAxe]

His hand originally hit Max King's shoulder which moved the hand upwards. The original intent was not the face.

Watch the video. From one angle it look like he may have hit the shoulder, from the other you can clearly see he reached over and grabbed the head. It wasn't accidental

https://www.news.com.au/sport/nrl/nrl-2022-bulldog-corey-waddell-banned-for-five-games-for-eyegouge/news-story/8eeaedd44b11cf78f5ed0dc50c7e6649

 

[DinkumDog]

What did Tino claim, "eye gouged", what did the ref put Waddel on report for "eye gouging" what did the NRL charge him with "Ungraded Dangerous Contact". My view is there NRL knew it could not possibly win the eye gouging charge, pictures of Tino at the time and afterwards plainly show that there was no eye gouging. They couldn't win that, so they chose a different (very generalised ie; vague) charge that they could win.

The real problem I have is that when the media reports on it they say "found guilty of eye gouging", which is plainly not the case. But let's get real, it is the media after all and "found guilty of an Upgraded Dangerous Contact charge" doesn't make for a good headline.


A bit of a long bow, the NSW Police Force are the complainants, the prosecution is the DPP, the Governor appoints Judges on the recommendation of the Attorney General and yes they all work for the Government which in fact means us the people. Dawson had the right to a jury trial but he (his legal team) asked for a judge only trial because of the publicity around the case that he thought may taint the jury pool. Waddel had no such right, the NRL doesn't allow it.

I did say dictatorship and communist approach to their judicial system as a comparison to the free world judicial system. Not that the NRL system itself was communist.

Cool. Now you appear to be creating arguments for the sake of it, regardless of the irrelevance.
I don’t need to debate this further.
But feel free to keep arguing with yourself, you might even find a comrade who agrees with you .